Like several other prominent Republicans, Newt Gingrich slammed Mitt Romney's assertion in a conference call with donors last week that he lost the 2012 presidential election because of "gifts" President Barack Obama gave to blacks, Hispanics and younger voters during his first term in the White House.

"It's nuts," Gingrich told guest host Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "First of all, it's insulting. This would be like Wal-Mart having a bad week and going, 'The customers have really been unruly.' I mean, the job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people, we're not going to win."

Also he said:

Quote:

"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong," Gingrich said in an interview with KLRU-TV in Austin. "First of all, we didn't lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America--they ain't into gifts.

"Second, it's an insult to all Americans," he continued. "It reduces us to economic entities. You have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy. If it had been that simple, my question would be, 'Why didn't you outbid him?' He had enough billionaire supporters, if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all his super PAC friends together and said, don't buy ads, give gifts. Be like the northwest Indians who have gift-giving ceremonies. We could have gone town-by-town and said, 'Come here, let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts.' An elephant coming in with gifts on it."

Maybe, just maybe, the insistence upon referring to individuals solely as statistical demographics might disenfranchise them with the GOP._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

The consensus in Las Vegas was that Obama won, not because Americans agreed with his positions on raising taxes on the rich or health care, but because Republicans got out-organized by the community organizer. Therefore, the president has no election mandate, because the reason he won had nothing to do with issues.

(the convention was held in las vegas).

which lead to things like this:

Quote:

This analysis also lets Republican Party ideology off the hook. It was widely agreed that nothing needed to be changed except perhaps the tone. For example, the idea that more than 70 percent of Hispanics voted for the president because of Republican positions on illegal immigration was rejected by the Republican governors.

The accepted wisdom is that Republican candidates need to campaign harder, and let Hispanics know they really care about their vote. Then that vote will start coming the GOP's way.

so: they care about the hispanic vote....just not actual hispanics. sounds kinda like their positions on women.

apparently, they absolutely believe the american electorate are a bunch of sheep who pay no attention to the issues, and will vote for whoever drags them to the polls, whether or not that party is promoting ideas that are damaging to that particular voter. well, maybe that's understandable - a good chunk of the republican base is happy to cut their own throats by supporting the party.

but there is hope:

Quote:

It may well be that the next Republican candidate for president will emerge from this large and strong group of conservative governors. The post-election rallying cry in Las Vegas was "no moderation" of the party's platform, and that a fresh face is all that's really needed.

and with any luck, that fresh face will have no more new ideas than the current face, and they will lose again....and again....and again. until someone decides that maybe the american people _do_ actually vote for things they want (like making the rich pay their fair share).

in the mean time, of course, we are going to have to deal with at least 2 years of republican intransigence, because they can't accept that people really _do_ want healthcare, and government-supplied infrastructure, and all that "stuff", and they really don't mind asking the rich to kick in a bit more._________________aka: neverscared!

Sorry, I meant to say "part of what is contributing to disenfranchisement"_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

but i do find it amusing that he moving into a neighborhood that in many ways is the antithesis of what he is about (except for the fact that people there are frequently Really Rich.)_________________aka: neverscared!

worst part about this: it wouldn't work. iirc, it's a house quorum, not an EC vote. they can't even get national subversion right.

The worst part about it is not that they're fundamentally wrong; that's the best and most funniest part.
The worst part is that someone honestly and knowingly tried to rally the troops to completely subvert democracy and deny the voters their say. By convincing government officials to not do their jobs.
I don't like the term "unamerican," but there's just no other word for it. Legit elections are the hallmark of a free society and the real bedrock of this one in particular (rhetoric about marriage and families notwithstanding). This shitstain wanted to throw that away because he didn't like the guy that won the popular and electoral vote.

worst part about this: it wouldn't work. iirc, it's a house quorum, not an EC vote. they can't even get national subversion right.

The worst part about it is not that they're fundamentally wrong; that's the best and most funniest part.
The worst part is that someone honestly and knowingly tried to rally the troops to completely subvert democracy and deny the voters their say. By convincing government officials to not do their jobs.
I don't like the term "unamerican," but there's just no other word for it. Legit elections are the hallmark of a free society and the real bedrock of this one in particular (rhetoric about marriage and families notwithstanding). This shitstain wanted to throw that away because he didn't like the guy that won the popular and electoral vote.

There is an avenue open to these people, if they're not pussies, which is armed insurrection. Rebellion runs in the yanks blood, does it not?

but i do find it amusing that he moving into a neighborhood that in many ways is the antithesis of what he is about (except for the fact that people there are frequently Really Rich.)

Moving? Is he bringing his dog with him? or his car elevator?

the dog, i guess, is long gone. and he doesn't have his car elevator yet, first he has to tear down the existing 3,000 sq. ft house to build an 11,000 sq. ft house (with car elevator). which he doesn't have permission for yet. word is, city counsel is ok with it, but he asked some of the neighbors to sign something saying they were ok with losing part of their ocean view...which got nowhere. you do _not_ get a san diegan to give up their ocean view. people go to great lengths to obtain and retain an ocean view.